Researchers: Florida Vote Fishy

[Merkuri]

Which would just take a tiny change in the code that makes, say, every 50th vote go to Bush. Were it unintentional it would be called a BUG. Just because it's intentional doesn't mean it's any easier to find. A while ago some software companies started giving out bonuses for coders who found bugs in the software. An unintended result of this is that coders started writing in bugs that they later "found" and earned the bonus. Just because it's intentional doesn't mean it's easier to find.

And I'm not even trying to prove that this was an intentional conspiracy! Just that the numbers are off only for those counties where this electronic voting system was used! Isn't that worth looking into, whether it's a conspiracy, a lone coder, or a simple mistake?

[Galadon]

And no one would noticed this change, all the people there to watch for this. Everyone is paid off to commit voter fraud.

[Merkuri]

Let's go over the basic steps to produce a piece of software, shall we?

• Design - Nothing much to say here, I don't think this supposed change was planned in advance.
  
• Coding - This step is where coder A looks at the design and bangs out some code to make it work. If coder A hates Kerry or really likes Bush he can make a simple change to the code. If he's really good (likely why he was hired) he can hide such code with obscure language to make it hard to read. Of course, coder A could also have added such a change without meaning to (i.e. his code has a bug).
  
• Code review - A coders B, C, and D read the code, then get together with the coder A and tell him what's wrong with it and how to fix it. If they are good friends with coder A they may all ignore his code change. If they are stubborn, then yes, maybe they were paid off. Or they may have simply missed coder A's change because code is hard to read and bugs are often missed.
  
• Testing - Testers A, B, and C take the compiled code and run it through a series of tests. The code they use is not human-readable, it's just a number of 1s and 0s for the computer to read, so they have no opportunity to see coder A's change. If they do extensive enough testing, they may find the result of coder A's change, but like all software companies, they are on a timetable. Regardless of how much time they have, though, it is impossible to test every single possible problem. They may miss coder A's change simply because they didn't do the right test. They could have forgotten this test, or it may never have occured to them to test that scenario, or maybe they were paid off as well.
  
• Production - The software goes into production and ships to Florida. Now it's too late to change anything.
  

So "all the people" that you're talking about is, what, 7 people? That's including the original coder and assuming we have excelent people working there and that it's fully staffed. All you really need, though, is one smart programmer with a vengance and six (or less depending on how the company is set up) more coders/testers who either don't care or are not paid enough or are not smart enough to catch his changes. Bugs get through big sofware projects every day. I don't find it hard to believe that a bug (or an intentional change) could slip through the same cracks on voting software. Why is that so hard to believe?

[Galadon]

Have you ever listened to the people who make the machines, and the people who are there to watch the voting.

Yes I know of computer operations and programing, In the former main frame now in PC's. Word, word perfect, D bases, spread sheets, building computers, fix computers and a host of other programs.

so your saying that all the people who make voting machines have to be democrat hating people. Isn't that kind of hard for that many machines and that many people to be all against the Democrats.

[Merkuri]

Galadon said:

so your saying that all the people who make voting machines have to be democrat hating people. Isn't that kind of hard for that many machines and that many people to be all against the Democrats.

Have you been reading what I've been posting? I don't think there is a huge conspiracy. I never said that all voting machine-makers supported Bush. Geeze, it's like talking to a brick wall.

[Hussar]

Never mind the fact that THE SAME PROGRAM is used in all machines. If the bug was in the original program, every machine would have it because all they do is copy the program from machine to machine, not rewrite the program for each machine.

Good grief, Gal. Have you ever tried to install Windows XP SP2? This is from the largest software company on the planet and it's got more bugs than a bee hive. I had to get it off my computer because it screwed up EVERY program. And I mean EVERY ONE. Now, I know you trust the government for everything. Isn't it possible that a government run coding project just maybe, might be, just possibly, might have the odd bug in it? Is this REALLY that much of a stretch of the imagination? Particularly when the statistical evidence supports it? Wouldn't you want this investigated? What if it was the other way? And the votes were going Dem? Would that be fine too?

No one is trying to overturn the vote. Heck, even if they did, Bush would still win. IT DOESN'T AFFECT THIS ELECTION. IT IS NOT PARTISAN POLITICS. It's simply a question of the validity of the coding. Good grief, just because you are incapable of seeing beyond your partisan bifocals, doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

[Merkuri]

Hussar said:

Now, I know you trust the government for everything. Isn't it possible that a government run coding project just maybe, might be, just possibly, might have the odd bug in it?

It's not even a government run coding project. It's a private corporation that made its software that the government bought. The government has just about the same say as to how this software works as they do in how Windows works.

[Galadon]

Seeing beyond my partisan belief.  

One would wonder why this is a topic, if nothing is wrong. To be clear I'm not saying there a media conspirary, that's for the left to harp about. I'm saying there is just plain out in the open, some admit to it, bias in the media.

As Merkuri knows, when you make a program for some like a voting machine. It's not going to work the first time you write it, or the second, third. You have to find the bugs and corrrect them. There are going to be problems, you have people go out and fix them. But what I heard since the election, (from others NOT Merkuri)

The machines are made with votes already in them for Bush.

The machines are programed that when they get a certain amout of votes for Kerry they are changed to Bush.

People would turn off the machines and lose votes for Kerry.

People couldn't understand how to work the machines.

I find these comments amusing because there from people eatting sour grapes. The simple fact this would be next to impossible, well it's amusing.

And I'm sure there are plenty of other theory's out there. People complained that the paper balots were to easy to change and were confusing. So they change to a electronic machine. that is supposed to be perfect the first time it's used in an election.

What I would like to see is the liberals idea of the perfect voting system. One way was no good, they come up with another way to vote, that's no good. I see alot of complants but few suggestions. I'm talking about all over not just on this site.

So tell me what is the perfect liberal voting system?

[Merkuri]

I have NEVER been in favor of an electronic voting system. Computers are just not ready for that type of responsibility yet. That being said, I like the system we've been using in my parents district of CT for as long as I can remember (having walked into the booths with them when I was a little kid). It's a mechanical system, you just pull the big lever to close the cutain, pull down the arrows for the guys you want to vote for, then pull the big lever back again to record your vote, reset the machine, and open the curtain. Simple, easy, painless. I haven't heard any complaints aobut these systems. There's no paper ballot to forge or be confused by, and there's no software to be potentially buggy. If somebody DOES screw with the machine, it's just a simple matter of glancing inside to see what's been changed. You can't do that easily with an electronic voting booth.

But I don't know a whole lot about voting machines in general. There may be a better system in use in another state that I've never seen. All I do know is that the idea of using a potentially buggy computer to record my vote really scares me and the problems they may be seeing in Florida don't surprise me at all.   

[Galadon]

I do believe the day of the pull the handle voting machine is a thing of the past.

[Merkuri]

Why? They work perfectly fine. That's how I voted this year.